Sorry for interjecting again. When I read the previous
messages, I thought that some companies (non-OASIS members) wanted to be able
to say that their product/service/etc conformed to a particular specification
and therefore needed an actual conformance statement in the specification so
that they would know what the requirements are. (i.e.
certification/compliance). As David says, you can’t build
conformance/compliance tests without knowing exactly what is required and what
is optional in various scenarios. Now I’m getting the impression that
this is tied to the OASIS TC Process requirement for 3 Statements of Use that
must be submitted in order to move forward with an OS Submission ballot. Those
Statements of Use:
<![endif]>Should say exactly what is required by the TC Process, no less
(and most often, no more)
<![endif]>Must be from OASIS Organizational Members
My apologies for not being thoroughly engaged in the overall
conversation; I’ve spent the last few days worrying about a close family
member and many hours at the hospital, but I don’t want to see the TC
spending cycles that may result in over-engineering ;-)
From: David RR Webber
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:04 PM
To: Alessandro Triglia
Cc: 'Elysa Jones'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] Use Case
In the past these have been two completely separate
Once the specification is approved - then compliance and
conformance activities can be established.
However - OASIS has attempted to tighten the onus on members
making statements of use and validation of the specification - so they are not
I would suggest that we still have to take these things in
good faith - and trust that the level of due diligence is sufficient.
"Your actual mileage may vary" is the phrase
that constantly resonates here.
For example - vendor X or agency Z may be going full
bore on a major implementation of specification Y with a 20 man team working
around the clock. One expects that they will have thrown a ton of dirt
out of the hole and found most of the rocks by now - and that feedback be
passed to the TC.
Conversely - another TC maybe producing a specification that
is 2 to 3 years ahead of where the market currently is. This may be a
small group - or a research department - close to the theory and practice
in the domain - but nevertheless - producing a new paradigm. One expects
that implementation will be based on testbeds and experimental inclusion into
production test systems - to verify a subset of function.
The key here is that people want to know when they vote on
something that it has at least been tried in some capacity and been found to be
successfully applicable. Therefore the statements of use should give
indication of the scope and extent.
As always - people expect a V1.0 specification to mature
over time - while a Version 3.0 clearly represents substantial investment and
In between is a large amount of outreach and hand holding to
take a specification from the drawing board to wide adoption and use.
Bottom line is we really need to leave it up to each member
to make a statement they are comfortable with - and then to either accept that
- or require additional members in order to cover the breadth we may sense is
-------- Original Message
Subject: RE: [emergency] Use Case
From: "Alessandro Triglia" <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, April 17, 2008 11:07 am
To: "'Elysa Jones'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
In my view this is straightforward. The statement of use should be strictly
based upon the conformance clause. We can't set requirements for a
statement of use that are more stringent than the conformance requirements
specified in the standard itself.
If the conformance section of a standard says that an implementation
conformant if and only if it does "Y", then all that the statement of
really needs to say is something like, "Here is an implementation X of
standard, which I certify to be conformant to the standard".
If the standard specifies multiple conformance targets, the statement of use
needs to say which target is being referred to.
If the standard specifies multiple conformance classes or levels, the
statement of use needs to say which conformance class or conformance level
is being referred to.
In other words, in my view, a statement of use should simply state that the
OASIS member organization has created an implementation of a standard and
should contain a conformance claim about that implementation. Like any
other conformance claim, that conformance claim should simply and very
clearly reference the particular conformance target, conformance class,
conformance level, and any conformance options that are specified in the
standard (if any).
The conformance section of RM (as of today) doesn't say that implementations
must support a complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment.
Therefore we cannot impose that kind of requirement on the statement of use.
If the TC believes that all implementations of RM should really support a
complete lifecycle of a successful resource deployment, then we should
change the standard to specify that requirement either in the conformance
section or elsewhere.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elysa Jones [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:30
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [emergency] Use Case
> TC Members,
> We would like to nail down the TC's consensus on what
> constitutes a "Use case" in our Standards. Most of you have
> been aware of this topic but we have not nailed down a
> position. We must do this before we can make the big push to
> get use cases for HAVE and RM.
> This topic came up during the EIC meeting yesterday. There
> are several EIC members that know of companies that may want
> to be the first or one of the first to advertise such a use
> case. We need to give them specific wording on what
> constitutes this "use". OASIS requires the statement to be
> in agreement with the conformance clause of the
> specification. We as a TC can cause this to be more or less
> stringent and there are schools of thought on both.
> Please review the two positions on the matter identified
> below and respond to the list on your preference. Although
> this does not require a formal vote of the TC, I want to make
> sure we have a good understanding and consensus on how we proceed.
> Position 1:
> * Comply with the full element reference model - required
> elements at a minimum. If a message is sent that complies
> with the ERM, then you can be compliant with any of the
> specific messages.
> * Deliver a RequestResource message and a
> ResponsetoRequestResource message (just 2 messages).
> If a vendor does either or, for purposes of statement of use
> and getting the standard out the door, this should be the
> minimum requirement.
> Position 2:
> * Agreed with position 1
> * A complete lifecycle of a "successful" Resource
> Deployment should be the minimum:
> RequestResource >
> ResponseToRequestResource >
> RequisitionResource >
> CommitResource >
> The messages about the deployment, requesting information,
> release, etc are not necessary, just the 5 listed.
> NOW - please make your comments to the list. The Mst/Not SC
> will schedule a meeting either Fri (4/18) or Mon (4/21) to
> discuss. From this a recommendation will be made. Respond
> to this message too with which date and what times you would
> be available.
> Elysa Jones
> Chair, OASIS EM-TC
> Warning Systems, Inc.
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: